my cellphone can call someone based on me saying "name dial"....."fat tony". of course, it says "fat tony, calling" instead of "calling fat tony", but i can live with that.
why can't i push a button on my computer and then say "open excel document fantasy draft 2006"? that's ridiculous. why can i push a one button remote and then say "yankee game" or "YES network" or "89"?
what are people waiting for?
Embarrassingly, I often miss metaphors in art. Whether it was scoring a 1 out of 5 on my Advanced English Placement test in Highschool or completely missing the fact that Maggie was the “blue bird of happiness” in season 5 of Six Feet Under, I’m not good at connecting abstract dots. But, I think I finally caught something on Sopranos this week, and I want to get all my thoughts out before I look up online as to whether or not I’m “right”. I think Arte’s story arc was a metaphor for the United States fall from grace.
The Bucco family’s early success was the stereotypical American Dream. In many ways, their success could be connected to early American in general. Through hard work and almost a naïve belief in self determination, they became a respected entity.
Somewhere along the line, though, Arte lost his way. He became consumed by success and greed, and got lazy. He started to care more about himself than his customers. Insecurity manifested itself as egotism, as he became a self defeating influence over his own business. Although he refused to admit it, he lost his dominance in the market and overall power.
Specifically, his competition (the new restaurant) represents the European Union. At first, Arte (America) tries to dismiss the upstart power as inferior, and even resorts to petty name calling instead of trying to compete on a qualitative level. He tries in vain to keep old markets open resorting to past success/friendships.
Suppliers (like the meat guy) begin losing faith in Arte, but he can’t understand why. The faith in the American product detoriates.
The United States helps third world countries only when it’s self beneficial. Arte was helping the Albanian hostess (specifically with governmental stuff such as green cards and housing) just because he wants to sleep with her. In fact, he even makes a comment about how it’s a small price to pay for freedom and says “we’re the leading power when it comes to data collection in the world” or something like that. He’s essentially referring to himself as the United States in that scene.
One of the reasons that Arte’s business suffers is because he is outsourcing his work. Tony tells him that he shouldn’t let the Mexicans do all the cooking in the restaurant. Arte is trying to cut costs (read: his own valuable time) by such outsourcing, but his product suffers. The general disdain that he feels towards his workers could also be correlated with our governments lack of concern over the dwindling middle class. The only thing that big business (which essentially IS the government) is concerned with is the bottom line. Comments regarding the size and inefficiency of American Express (a huge corporation) were also interesting, when taken in this context.
Arte increasingly becomes more irrational, which could be connected to the Bush administration. He dismisses the sound advice of Charmaine (the “far left”?), and instead chooses to believe his own hype regarding and outdated review of his restaurant (“they hate us for our freedom”?).
The trouble he suffers is in fact a result of his greed, and “associating with a certain element”. That’s Cheney, Karl Rove, etc. He then goes and burns the bridges of his most loyal allies (Tony) in order for a quick short term fix, which inevitably creates later problems.
Just in general, Arte’s refusal to adapt and change is directly on point with the current state of our government / society / country. We keep telling ourselves that “we’re the best” and that everyone loves us, when that’s clearly not the case. Economically, we’re falling apart, and yet we hold onto this false sense of superiority (Arte’s refusal to use coupons, our country’s moral naivety). You can even connect the B story of Christopher’s observations of the decadence in LA with America’s deterioration. The rich get richer, to the point of absurdity. I thought was interesting that the two famous actors were British (I’m assuming that woman was British). The last scene, where the two Italian guys were joking about the weak American dollar and how the items they purchased would have cost more in Italy was very telling. I think Chase was warning the country with this episode that you can only rest on your reputation for so long.
Then again, the Sopranos is the worst example of product placement I have ever witnessed on television, so maybe I’m completely wrong.
read from bottom to top
Dye walked, Cintron to third, Thome to second.
Konerko popped out to shortstop.
Thome walked, Cintron to second.
Cintron singled to center.
Podsednik caught stealing, catcher to shortstop.
Podsednik walked.
three walks in the first inning, AND a hit, and still no runs.
i gotta write this timeline down first before i miss something.
10:00-10:10 - interviewed the texas girl.
10:10-10:12 - duke lax players are from ny/nj area
10:12-10:21 - the cherry drink
10:21-10:24 - back to the train, teasers for more train stuff, and american idol controversy.
commercials
circa 10:26 - train, then cruise baby born.
10:29 back to commercials.
THIS WAS HALF THE NEWS.
more details to come when my blood pressure lessens.
not only is moneyball mis-labeled by the MSM, but so is small ball. For some reason, everything that is classified as "fundamental baseball" is also known as "small ball". It's kind of an unfair battle between moneyball and small ball when PITCHING is labeled as small ball.
The way i see it, the decision when to bunt is a moneyball vs. smallball debate. whether or not the person can successfully lay down that bunt is fundamentals. There's some overlap in that moneyball teams tend to collect players who's skills are more in the take and rake catagory and not the bunting, speed catagory. But, that doesn't mean that moneyballers wouldn't want guys who could also bunt.
this is such a intro 101 post that adds nothing to the discussion, but it's just frustrating to continue to see moneyball vs. smallball continue to be distorted in the MSM. i shouldn't have fallen asleep with sportscenter on.
The foxsports.com article discussing michael keaton ripping on the pirates management was titled "batman takes some swings". he hasn't been batman in 15 years.
i was reminded that i went to sunday school as a kid. i strained myself trying to remember ANYTHING from all those wasted years. here's what i came up with:
1) the guy who directed traffic in the parking lot was very obnoxious. He'd give the big windmill "i'm sending you from third to home to win the world series" arm gesture when it was our turn to go. it always drove me crazy.
2) me and a kid had a runny nose one day, but it was during the time period where i was self conscious about blowing my nose in public (actually, i'm still self conscious about that). we were sniffing so loudly, that the teacher actually handed us the tissue box. That always offended me.
3) when i was "older", we were in a class taught by a nun. My friend sitting next to me was leaning back on his chair, and as a joke, i was going to pretend to pull it out from him. unfortunately, i pulled too hard, and he fell. i got yelled at. 30 minutes later, i thought it would be funny to pretend to do it again. but once again, i pulled too hard.
4) in highschool, the Delbarton kids were sooooo proud of the fact that they went to delbarton. One even made a comment to me about how i would doodle on my notebook while he was "respecting god" or something. yikes.
5) kids were asked to host gatherings a few times a year. The woman hinted that i should host one. i told her no. she then called my house to insist on us hosting it. i told my mom that i would quit if we were forced to host one. I think that was my final straw with the church.
that's really all i can remember. i don't remember even a single story about god or anything.
me: "wow, that guy looks like milton from office space". "wait, he also looks like the boss from news radio".
me: "uh, is milton from office space the same guy as the boss from news radio?"
me: "wow!"
ugh, pitt better start fouling here.
When i saw matrix reloaded, i became instantly obsessed. That movie was so epically bad, and yet so loved by the fan boys. I would go to the imdb boards every night and read the flame wars.
There was one guy who actually went to film school and seemed to know what he was talking about. He pointed to 5 fatal flaws of the movie. I wish i had saved the post, b/c i bet a lot of stuff applies to movies i hate.
dodgeball definitely has one of those flaws. I forget the official name, but there's a technique in movies that should only be used sparingly. It's when the characters have to explain the plot through a monologue. It's the kiss of death. In the first matrix, the example was when Morpheus was tied up by the agents, and Agent Smith was giving a monologue about how the machines hate earth/humans. in that case, it was effective b/c there was still "stuff" going on. Neo and Trinity were breaking into the building and were in a fire fight with the guards. Then they were flying a helicopter and whatnot. This kept the pace up during the monologue.
In matrix II, there was a lot of standing around and just describing what was going on. That's lazy writing and was one of the many reasons the movie was terrible.
I just watched the beginning of Dodgeball b/c, while i hated the 2nd half of the movie, i felt like I owed it to my rage to watch the whole thing. And, I'm glad I did, b/c the ______ [whatever you call the technique] was pheonomally overdone. To explain the rules of dodgeball to the viewers of the movie, they actually showed an instructional video! I imagine the video was supposed to be funny (it wasn't, of course), but still. It was a 5 minute video that explained "the rules".
wow. just wow.
used to be "the human victory cigar". now it's "postertag". i don't know how long that's been around, but it's AWESOME.
also, here's a tidbit
"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."
duke bc. The pg (who threw that game against georgetown) dives for a loose ball, and throws it off of a BC player. As he's being helped up by JJ, he excitingly throws his hands out with a fist pump like motion. He's not even looking at the BC player when he does this.
The bc guy feels the "punch", and then starts a fight.
the announcers couldn't decide if he was punching the bc player on purpose, or if it was "good hustle play" tap of acknowledgment play.
uh, he's not even looking at the BC guy.
sheesh.
duke bc. The pg (who threw that game against georgetown) dives for a loose ball, and throws it off of a BC player. As he's being helped up by JJ, he excitingly throws his hands out with a fist pump like motion. He's not even looking at the BC player when he does this.
The bc guy feels the "punch", and then starts a fight.
the announcers couldn't decide if he was punching the bc player on purpose, or if it was "good hustle play" tap of acknowledgment play.
uh, he's not even looking at the BC guy.
sheesh.
I had an idea for a documentary where a bunch of people were put in a plain room, and they had to decide who would get a million dollars. Everyone would have to agree, or nobody would get it. They'd be given food and other essentials, but nothing else. people would be allowed to quit, but only after paying a penalty.
that would have been awesome. "real world", but stripped down. As it stands, fox now has a show that's similar, but not as good. here's the article:
In a dramatic new television experiment, a diverse group of nine strangers are locked in a bunker, where they’ll remain until they decide who is worthy of a 1.5-million-dollar cash prize.
There is a catch, though, because the longer it takes to make a unanimous decision, the less money there will be to win. If they take too long, they will be left with nothing.
Upon entering their isolated living quarters, the nine contestants are cut off from the outside world, locked away, and presented the opportunity to win $1.5 million. The only thing standing between them and the money is a simple vote. If they are able to come to a unanimous decision about who should win the money, the game is over. If the outcome of the vote is not unanimous, the money clock is activated and the cash prize begins its countdown with potentially thousands of dollars lost every hour until the next voting period.
n every episode, each of the nine contestants, who include a minister, an atheist, a ladies’ man and a feminist, must convince the others to vote only for him or her. Before the vote, personal facts, secrets and lies are revealed, perhaps helping them decide who should receive the money. As the game progresses, contestants will be eliminated from winning the cash prize, but – in a television first – they will continue to live in the bunker and will continue to vote.
Will contestants’ greed for the money outweigh their desire to help someone potentially less fortunate than themselves? Who will lie and connive, and who will be truthful and sincere? No matter what, the final vote must be UNAN1MOUS.
It’s
I’m hanging around with my lawschool “friends” at some type of airport/mall combo. It’s post lawschool, and we’re all on to bigger and better things. I have friends in quotes because these aren’t exactly the group of people I’d consider my friends. More like the people I was forced to be friendly with to keep the status quo.
Obviously, 90% of this dream is based on the fact that Joe and I were talking about this fabulous looking pizza he’s had in
But, in my defense, "crashing the party" was a really boring book, and i never got to that chapter. If i had, however, I would have been a huge supportor of this process. Seriously, this could really solve a lot of problems regarding our democracy (other than the lack of an independent media, of course).
If there was IRV, it would be impossible for the big two (well, one, if you want to just call them corportists) to demonize third party candidates. Instead of being labeled as "spoilers", third party candidates could run and address real issues. More voters would come out b/c they'd actually have candidates who represent them. They could vote their conscience instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. If we had IRV, i wouldn't have had to vote for Kerry in 2004!
Of course, discussing this is pointless, b/c there's no way that the big two will ever allow IRV to happen. God forbid we have elections that are actually based on issues. Anyway, here is the article.
[btw, i really enjoyed the critics theory that IRV is bad b/c "people will just not come out and vote b/c it's too complicated". Yeah, b/c i really want an election decided by people who don't understand "vote for your top 5 candidates". yikes].
Instant-Runoff Voting is Gaining Momentum as Problem Solver It eliminates need for runoff election, cuts 'spoiler' effect |
| by Ross Sneyd |
| BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Runoff elections are traditionally cumbersome processes, taking weeks and sometimes months to determine a winner. On Tuesday, Burlington will do it all instantly. The results for the first election and whatever runoffs are needed to settle a five-way race for mayor will be known soon after poll closing. That's because voters, for the first time in a mayoral election in the United States, will vote Tuesday not only for their top choice, but also for their second, third and fourth choices through an innovation known as instant runoff voting. Voters will be handed a ballot listing the five candidates, three of them representing major parties, with columns indicating first through fifth choices. If none of the five gets 50 percent of the vote on the first round, the candidate with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. The second choice of voters who made that candidate their initial top choice then would count. "As soon as somebody gets to 50 percent, it stops," said Jo LaMarche, the city's election director. Advocates have been promoting the idea of instant runoff voting, also known as ranked-choice voting, as a way of boosting voter turnout, encouraging more people to run for public office while eliminating the notion that a third-party candidate might be a spoiler. "Nationally, people are catching on to how IRV can open up our politics," said Ryan O'Donnell, communications director of FairVote and the Center for Voting and Democracy. "It's a reform that produces majority winners, encourages candidates to reach out to more voters, and eliminates the 'spoiler' problem." Burlington will not be the first community in the country to use a form of instant runoff. San Francisco has elected members of its board of supervisors using the system and the city of Ferndale, Mich., also is scheduled to use it. It will be the first to elect its chief executive officer with the system, though. A number of other counties, cities, and towns also have shown interest, according to FairVote, including San Diego, Oakland, Davis and Berkeley in California. Bills are pending in at least 15 states to implement instant runoffs at local levels or statewide. The state of Washington last year gave a number of mid-sized cities authority to conduct instant runoff voting, although none has so far used it. LaMarche said she's heard a lot of interest as well, fielding calls from South Carolina, Anchorage, Alaska, and communities in northern California. "A lot of people are just waiting to see how this works with Burlington," she said. An academic who has studied voting systems said Burlington deserved the attention, despite its relatively small size. "I think it's significant because it's going to put Burlington on the cutting edge of this kind of election reform," said Doug Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and author of "Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems." He said the outcome of the 2000 presidential election likely would have been different if Florida had used instant runoff voting. Amy predicted that votes that went to Ralph Nader ultimately probably would have gone to Al Gore if there had been an instant runoff, giving the former vice president victory in Florida and ultimately the presidency. "I think that really brought that problem to national attention," he said. "It allows people to vote for any candidate they want and they don't have to worry about electing someone they least want." Not everyone is enthusiastic about the reform, though. Some election administrators around the country worry that because the system is somewhat more complicated than traditional plurality voting, fewer people will show up at the polls. There's also concern that some ranked choices might not get counted in second and third rounds, a problem that initially bedeviled the system in San Francisco. Doug Lewis, director of the Election Center, which represents elections administrators nationally, said those all are concerns he and his colleagues have heard about instant runoffs. But he can't say whether they're valid. "Most of my folks don't have the time or inclination (to investigate) because we're so busy," he said. "Until you work with it enough and find out, it would be difficult to find out." LaMarche believes Burlington voters will not see much unusual. The city is using the same optical scanning machines and ballots that it's used in the past. The only difference is that there are extra ovals after each mayoral candidate's name for second, third, fourth and fifth choices. The city clerk's office conducted some voter training in January to try to get voters interested and educated. There also have been mailings to all voters with graphics and text explaining how the system works. Candidates even have tried to take advantage of the new system. Progressive Party candidate Bob Kiss' signs promote him as the "first choice for mayor." Republican Kevin Curley has told his supporters that he endorses Kiss as a second choice. Democrat Hinda Miller has declined to endorse a second choice, arguing she's confident she'll win in the first round. |
But, in my defense, "crashing the party" was a really boring book, and i never got to that chapter. If i had, however, I would have been a huge supportor of this process. Seriously, this could really solve a lot of problems regarding our democracy (other than the lack of an independent media, of course).
If there was IRV, it would be impossible for the big two (well, one, if you want to just call them corportists) to demonize third party candidates. Instead of being labeled as "spoilers", third party candidates could run and address real issues. More voters would come out b/c they'd actually have candidates who represent them. They could vote their conscience instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. If we had IRV, i wouldn't have had to vote for Kerry in 2004!
Of course, discussing this is pointless, b/c there's no way that the big two will ever allow IRV to happen. God forbid we have elections that are actually based on issues. Anyway, here is the article.
[btw, i really enjoyed the critics theory that IRV is bad b/c "people will just not come out and vote b/c it's too complicated". Yeah, b/c i really want an election decided by people who don't understand "vote for your top 5 candidates". yikes].
Instant-Runoff Voting is Gaining Momentum as Problem Solver It eliminates need for runoff election, cuts 'spoiler' effect |
| by Ross Sneyd |
| BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Runoff elections are traditionally cumbersome processes, taking weeks and sometimes months to determine a winner. On Tuesday, Burlington will do it all instantly. The results for the first election and whatever runoffs are needed to settle a five-way race for mayor will be known soon after poll closing. That's because voters, for the first time in a mayoral election in the United States, will vote Tuesday not only for their top choice, but also for their second, third and fourth choices through an innovation known as instant runoff voting. Voters will be handed a ballot listing the five candidates, three of them representing major parties, with columns indicating first through fifth choices. If none of the five gets 50 percent of the vote on the first round, the candidate with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. The second choice of voters who made that candidate their initial top choice then would count. "As soon as somebody gets to 50 percent, it stops," said Jo LaMarche, the city's election director. Advocates have been promoting the idea of instant runoff voting, also known as ranked-choice voting, as a way of boosting voter turnout, encouraging more people to run for public office while eliminating the notion that a third-party candidate might be a spoiler. "Nationally, people are catching on to how IRV can open up our politics," said Ryan O'Donnell, communications director of FairVote and the Center for Voting and Democracy. "It's a reform that produces majority winners, encourages candidates to reach out to more voters, and eliminates the 'spoiler' problem." Burlington will not be the first community in the country to use a form of instant runoff. San Francisco has elected members of its board of supervisors using the system and the city of Ferndale, Mich., also is scheduled to use it. It will be the first to elect its chief executive officer with the system, though. A number of other counties, cities, and towns also have shown interest, according to FairVote, including San Diego, Oakland, Davis and Berkeley in California. Bills are pending in at least 15 states to implement instant runoffs at local levels or statewide. The state of Washington last year gave a number of mid-sized cities authority to conduct instant runoff voting, although none has so far used it. LaMarche said she's heard a lot of interest as well, fielding calls from South Carolina, Anchorage, Alaska, and communities in northern California. "A lot of people are just waiting to see how this works with Burlington," she said. An academic who has studied voting systems said Burlington deserved the attention, despite its relatively small size. "I think it's significant because it's going to put Burlington on the cutting edge of this kind of election reform," said Doug Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and author of "Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems." He said the outcome of the 2000 presidential election likely would have been different if Florida had used instant runoff voting. Amy predicted that votes that went to Ralph Nader ultimately probably would have gone to Al Gore if there had been an instant runoff, giving the former vice president victory in Florida and ultimately the presidency. "I think that really brought that problem to national attention," he said. "It allows people to vote for any candidate they want and they don't have to worry about electing someone they least want." Not everyone is enthusiastic about the reform, though. Some election administrators around the country worry that because the system is somewhat more complicated than traditional plurality voting, fewer people will show up at the polls. There's also concern that some ranked choices might not get counted in second and third rounds, a problem that initially bedeviled the system in San Francisco. Doug Lewis, director of the Election Center, which represents elections administrators nationally, said those all are concerns he and his colleagues have heard about instant runoffs. But he can't say whether they're valid. "Most of my folks don't have the time or inclination (to investigate) because we're so busy," he said. "Until you work with it enough and find out, it would be difficult to find out." LaMarche believes Burlington voters will not see much unusual. The city is using the same optical scanning machines and ballots that it's used in the past. The only difference is that there are extra ovals after each mayoral candidate's name for second, third, fourth and fifth choices. The city clerk's office conducted some voter training in January to try to get voters interested and educated. There also have been mailings to all voters with graphics and text explaining how the system works. Candidates even have tried to take advantage of the new system. Progressive Party candidate Bob Kiss' signs promote him as the "first choice for mayor." Republican Kevin Curley has told his supporters that he endorses Kiss as a second choice. Democrat Hinda Miller has declined to endorse a second choice, arguing she's confident she'll win in the first round. |
and i had to search for it. i was hoping that it was filthy who drew my attention to this way of writing, but wasn't sure. what a pleasent surprise:
I'm not sure who knows what Deus Ex Machina is, but it's a story term meaning "a god introduced into a story to resolve the entanglements of the plot. Any artificial or improbable device introduced into a story to resolve the plot." Whenever you see some cheap trick used to solve a plot problem, you're seeing Deus Ex Machina, the lazy bastard's best friend.
Most writers at least have enough class to invent their own cheap solution. But the not here. In Planet of the Apes, the Powerbook-and-goatee boys were so lazy they used the literal definition and ran with it. No, wait, they walked because it hurts too much to run with studio executive hands up their asses.
And, it gets worse. For whatever reason, the chimp is traveling through space with a pistol, which is then conveniently used for the one-millionth scramble-for-the-dropped-gun scene. Marky and the chimp hold hands causing all the apes to decide they were wrong to ever mistreat humans. That's followed Marky stealing the poor chimp's pod and flying back into space. He returns to earth back in the present where, for no good reason, modern-day earth is ruled by the exact same apes (down to the nams) who were ruling some distant planet hundreds of years from now. Hollywood expects our minds to be blown.
Those thieving grassfuckers in LA think we're so Goddamn stupid that the "surprise" of this ending will outweigh the sheer disbelief of even the dumb teenagers behind me. Note to studio executives: a twist only works if it makes some sense. Any sense. A ripe pile of shit out of left field just makes you look desperate. And you obviously were.
